Blackwater Canyon Line - November 17, 2024 - Scratch Built Church

John, 

I just saw your latest post.  Yes, we have proven what you knew all along, the second turntable takes up less room than the loop.  You just have to position the tracks to the table in the right positions.  24" versus 42"!  Duh on my part!! 

Mark Boyce posted:

John,

Your points about 30" or less reach is well taken.  I have had my "temporary" 4 x 8 layout up for over 2 years changing it from Christmas to Summer theme and back.  It is a 2" sheet of foam on a folding table.  To do any track work in the back, (and I have had trouble with Flextrack there) I have to slide the foam out at an angle, then crawl under the corner to the newly opened area, because there is a dresser at each end blocking the way.  When I just want to change a building in the back, I have been sliding it in by placing it on the end of a 4' stitck and gingerly moving it in place with the stick.  I HATE IT!  LOL. That is why the Christmas theme is still up and I am in no hurry to take it down.  I am pushing 61, and am more limber than a lot of guys my age, but I am well aware I am in decline!  LOL

That said just to emphasize I need realativly easy access to all points.

John,

Two points I like about the initial design.  First, I agree it is a more interesting run than the 'What If' I proposed that Dave then ran with.  Second, and I forgot to mention earlier, these later plans have a situation where the track crosses over several 'yard/fiddle' tracks or switches.  While lots of folks like that interest, it doesn't resemble anything on the prototype, and I'm not looking for that.  I have a friend on Facebook who is building a very handsome layout, and it has a track bridging over a yard.  He built an ingenious sectional bridge he can lift out for access.  Cool, but not what I had in mind.

 I want to sketch out the scenic possibilities of the initial snaking design with tunnels and see what the views could be.  I have something in mind, but want to get it on paper.

One more thing, while more tracks and switches make for more operation possibilities, they can also clog up the layout and I could lose the mountains effect.

Yes, I proved I can handle any grade we have discussed.  

This has been most interesting and fun!  I appreciate every idea every one has offered.  I need to step back and take it all into consideration.

Mark:  You have a lot to think about.  I like your thought about keeping the mountainous look.  You will NEVER have enough space for staging/yard lanes.  I don't in my basement.

A fiddle area, or two, one at each "end", of your run, is the best idea.  I've seen a couple of rolling cabinets, made out of plastic, that would be perfect to store cars and exchange with ones on layout.  They would roll under your layout when not in use and when you need them just roll it out a little.

It would be good to have at least two short lanes at each town so you could uncouple the engine from its consist, pull onto the turntable, turn, and be able to connect onto the rear of the same consist.

Any storing will have to be done under the layout.

PS:  ANOTHER THREAD just brought this idea to mind.  Collect some actual ballast and earth from the canyon and use it on your line!  We have done this on the Glacier Line.  We really think it's cool that actual ballast and earth from the prototype main is on our layout.  BNSF may not feel the same way.

John C. posted:

PS:  ANOTHER THREAD just brought this idea to mind.  Collect some actual ballast and earth from the canyon and use it on your line!  We have done this on the Glacier Line.  We really think it's cool that actual ballast and earth from the prototype main is on our layout.  BNSF may not feel the same way.

Fortunately for me, the area I was modeling had been abandoned and the tracks gone. That said, I know of a guy who spotted a freshly dumped ballast pile for future track work. He returned with a few five-gallon buckets and some sifting trays. He collected the "dust" from the ballast and threw the ballast back into the pile. A couple of trains passed by and one of them radioed security. When they showed up and found out what he was doing, they advised him to stay on the side where he was working.

While I wouldn't go onto [active] railroad property, there are some who have managed to gather ballast dust without ending up in handcuffs.

Matt,

Great story about that fellow!  I am like you, the Blackwater Grade is now a bicycle trail.  While they probably hauled in gravel for the trail, (no it doesn't appear to be paved), I'm sure ballast and who knows what else can be found.  When we lived in West Virginia, we made a few trips up there and I looked around as much as I could with two toddlers.  Now that they are grown and married, I would be more free to look around.  I just need to drop my wife off at the shops in Thomas and go over to the old railroad grade.  Win-win!

Unless she spends everything you've got in town.  :-)

John C. posted:

Unless she spends everything you've got in town.  :-)

I am very fortunate that my wife, among many other good attributes, is thrifty and a bargain hunter.  Both our daughters learned from her very well!  

I have had a lot going on, but will be commenting soon about the layout design.  We have 4 elderly relatives, my parents, aunt, and mother-in-law who are all in good health (for late 80s to early 90s) but we have to help out.  Like everything else, when it rains, it pours!  LOL

Dave,

You saw my dilemma, (as I knew in the beginning there would be dilemmas), I only have so much space, and I would like to make the most of it.  There would have to be major decisions on what to go with, and what to leave out.  I have always liked turntables, but I also want some modeled town areas along with mountain scenery!  Can one have his cake and eat it too?  Possibly not in O gauge in under 144 square feet.  

That is what I asked for lots of ideas.  After looking over these plans, I like them a lot.  I do intend to run some point to point, but I would also like to do some continuous running too.  Continuous run doesn't have to be around in circles.  I can run up the mountain, and pretend I am continuing down the other side heading on towards Cumberland.  Then a run back up and finally terminate the run.  The part of the loop that gets hidden by trees, can represent the mainline going on through, or it can represent the branch line going to Davis.  There are a lot of scenarios that can be run here!

As to the passing siding halfway down, I don't know yet.  By myself, I may find it too difficult to get two trains to meet properly, like happened on a small layout I had years ago.  On the other hand, now that I run command control, I may be able to get it to work.  Of course if I had a second operator, then it would be no sweat.  Yes, without it it would look more like the scene I sent you in the photo.  I will have to find that photo for the group, but not this evening.  That doesn't need decided yet.

The staging tracks underneath was a surprise when you added them.  I did some measuring, and then setup a couple shelves to test the idea.  While I didn't have anything on hand to represent the top shelf that stuck out as far as needed here, I didn't have any problem reaching in to the rear cars.  Maybe the farthest in track would be impractical to reach, but overall I like the idea.  Again, that doesn't need decided yet, though it would have to be early in construction.  

I like the idea of the lift out hatches.  With 2-inch thick foam bases and foam scenery, they would weigh very little, and I could hide the visible edges with bushes, etc.

Oh, but I forgot to mention those spurs in the top right corner would be excellent to keep a couple engines parked when not in use.  I am so afraid of dropping engines, though it wouldn't be as bad with John's suggested rubber flooring tiles.  Still, I have trouble gripping the heavier engines with the arthritis in my thumbs, and by heavier, I don't mean very heavy either.  Also, that Lionel engine house could be used representing the one in the Davis photo.

Well folks, what does everyone else think.  I do have on 24" turntable on hand, that could be used, but not in these plans.  I would like to have one, but they do take up space that could be sceniced.  

Thank you everyone who has participated.  If I don't respond until late tomorrow, it is because I will be going to the Greenberg show in Monroeville, Pennsylvania.  I'm taking a friend who hasn't had trains for years, but he is excited to go.  I'm hoping he catches the bug when he sees the Pittsburgh Independent HiRailer's modular layout.  It was 15 degrees this morning with wind chill on top of that; snow and ice; but tomorrow morning is to be in the 30s and high up around 50, so I hear.

Mark,
Just so you know, a turntable is still an option, it just limits your landscaping options unless you follow through with your idea for a removable platform in that area. And as you can see, I was able to add some whisker tracks. They vary from ~12" to ~30", but that depends on where you specifically place the turntable.
NOTE: Sorry about the 3D image, the turntable automatically fills the space below.

One caveat is that I don't know how deep the turntable pit is, so I'm not sure about clearance for the staging yard. Also, the version with the passing siding presents some grade challenges if you want both the turntable and yard. It should be noted that the turntable and whisker tracks, when rotated, could also fit where the lower loop is. As you know, the idea for the staging track started with just a single track so you could be staging a new train while the other was running and it blossomed into a yard.

One final thought that I haven't modeled is that if you take out the yard, the blue track could wind beneath the upper level to make the run longer. However, access would be limited, but I wanted to throw the idea out there because I don't think you have enough to think about.

Well I ran into several OGR Forum members at the Greenberg show in Monroeville, Pennsylvania today.  A couple commented on this topic. Yes, Dave, as if I didn't have enough to think about, you add another idea.    That's okay!  That is why I started this topic.  Everyone should be happy to know I only bought one thing at the show; an MTH 2-bay hopper car for the layout.  I really didn't see anything else that tugged at me, maybe because in the back of my mind I was thinking, I need to buy lumber and track!!    I did have a good time at the show, and was glad to visit with so many Forum members!

Oh, yes the turntable is the Atlas O that screws down on the top of the table; no pit, so clearance isn't an issue.  I am thinking against it and going with the other plan with the loops and the passing track.  I may not use the passing track when I am by myself, but it would be fun if someone else was running trains with me.

Can't wait to hear the idea.

Oh the idea was the one you mentioned about taking the yard out and Snaking the blue line in and back out for a longer run.  You mentioned access, and I agree that could be a problem.  I could get my hands in to the front tracks of her yard, but snaking the main line in would put it farther back.  The only way I think, and I have never seen this before would be to make it removable with latches holding it down normally.  That is getting too complicated to be practical for me.  Too hard to construct, and too heavy to slide out.  I want to keep it simple and maintainable as I get older.  I don't want to overthink this.  LOL

I misunderstood, I thought you got the idea at the show yesterday when talking to some folks from the forum.

Your comment though does bring up the question of how you envision your 2nd level being supported. It may be too early to mention this, but with the yard beneath the loop, the design assumes that section of the 3/4" plywood decking will be supported by pylons while the rest can be on a grid, something like shown in the photo. The black lines are the grid frame, the gray is the decking over the yard supported by pylons, the black circles.

Dave,

Yes I see that the pilons would provide the widest access spaces to those tracks.  If I was running trains and not wanting to have the lower tracks visible thinking they were distracting, I could make removable fascia panels.  I would probably just leave it open all the time, because I pretty much focus on the train I'm running and the immediate scenery around it.  Thank you for the exploded view of that section.

Well, you've got some time to think about skirting and fascia, even after the track is laid. I can envision detachable faux rock wall sections that would be attached with pins for alignment and magnets to hold them in place. A lot will depend on how you decide to landscape, but I don't think making removable panels will be as difficult as you may think. Just be sure to include some lighting underneath so you can see things.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Hi Mark,

I couldn't help trying a couple of different approaches to John's design that might better fit your space and desired operation. See what you think.

NOTE: I updated this based on the changes you emailed today. (I should have noticed that and moved those upper spurs to the outside. )

 

I replaced both turntables with reversing loops to allow for the placement of buildings, trees, mountain, etc. For example, you could place a logging operation in the top loop, then paint a logging truck coming down to a loading platform on the wall. There are ways to use trees and other landscaping elements to make it look like a train with empty cars is arriving and a train with full cars is departing. A mill would be located on the upper access hatch and a lumber yard and other building would be in the bottom loop. 

 

I also changed the lower loop to make it look smoother, moved the lower loop to eliminated tracks crossing over each other and added a possible hidden staging yard (pylons are for visibility).

 

In the first example, the yellow track is at 8”, the blue track is at 0" and the purple grade is 3.3%. The red dots denote tracks that need to be cut. The staging yard is optional and can be deleted simply by replacing the switch and make-up curve with a full O42 curve. Even though this doesn't have a passing siding, it allows more space for landscaping the incline with trees, etc., like the magazine photos you emailed.

 

 

In this 2nd example, the yellow track is at 7”, the green track is at 2”, the blue track is at 0", the longer purple grade is 3.6%, the shorter purple grade is 3.3% and the passing siding has been included. The entry to the staging yard is kind of curvy, but backing in would be slow, it can be straightened by altering the bench work a bit and cutting the transition track coming off the switch.

 

 

Dave:  NOT faulting your effort...I love the drawing program you are using.  

There are multiple issues here:  There are turnouts situated improperly.  Curve part is main line.  Switch is set for potential "S" curves.  Multiple sections of track over over switches/yard area.  Bottom area has completely changed and is eating up too much space...reach is becoming a major issue.  Accessing cars parked in that yard is going to be a pain in the rear with tracks over it.  Personal issue....I don't like the toy train loop at the bottom of the drawing--it may be possible to disguise this loop then access would be come even further restricted.  The passing siding has really been shortened.

This area is relatively small.  This plan now includes a "continuous" option, which isn't bad in itself, but with the limited run, this track configuration is turning into a looping toy train layout.

I realize everyone is different, everyone has their own opinion and tastes, but Mark relayed to me that he wanted something more realistic.  This drawing isn't.

It would be a heck of a lot more realistic, interesting, fun and challenging to create the original design and run point to point.  At the end of the run, as in real life, the engine would have to be turned and serviced for its return trip.  It would require switching the caboose position as well.  This would give an Operator(s) something to do.  The track arrangement above would require some one to turn the power on and sit and watch.

If someone would do the looping arrangement above I would place the track on the floor--Fastrak or similar.  It would be easier to access everything and when a person got tired of the looping the arrangement could be changed without great expense.

I know this sounds snotty, short and sarcastic....NONE of that is my intention.  I am/was merely attempting to fulfill Mark's request of having a more realistic arrangement.  

Lastly, Dave you are great! to help all the people, including me, in this Forum.  I understand and appreciate the time and effort it takes to do the drawing.

I wish I had your program and skill.  You seem to be able to produce these quickly.

My two cents....and at least since I'm Mark's unofficial adviser, I can offer my personal observations.  :-) 

Thank you for your comments, John!  When Dave first saw my topic, I would think he probably noticed similarities in my crude software drawing with a design he was working on for himself last year.  My design was influenced by his and another fellow, Jason17112.  Of course I was asking anyone for ideas as that concept was not just what I was looking for.  As too S curves, yes those are details that can easily overlooked until someone else points them out.  Thanks for that.  Yes, the holding yard is a concept that seems attractive, but even as I tested that I could reach in an pick up cars on the front two or three tracks, but what happens if I need to repair a bad switch or section of track? I admitted above, I would have to make the top level removable, or the lower yard track slide out; both of which would probably be nightmares for me to construct and maintain in themselves.  When Dave added it to the design a number of days ago, he said he was just throwing it in for comment.  I am thinking the only part of it that would be practical for me would be to only have one track going off the mainline there and staying right at the front.  No there isn't really any prototype for it in the real Blackwater Grade, but there is no passing siding either.  I have the track diagrams for the whole line from Elkins to Cumberland, which I got from the Western Maryland Historical society back in the 1990s.  The section in question only shows two stub sidings along the grade, one about 1/3 of the way up and another 2/3 of the way up.  I am not interested in modeling them.  No room for the flat spots for one.  As I said a day or two ago, I probably wouldn't use the passing siding when operating alone, which would be most of the time.  If the lower yard under the Davis/Thomas area wasn't there, the passing track could be longer, but I'm leaning against that.

You are right, I do want to have trains go from one place to another with a purpose.  That is the point to point idea.  However, I do like to see a train travel a ways before reaching it's destination.  The clever ways both John and Dave looped track around to make a longer run really helps this problem.  Still I envisioned the run being too short.  That is where I drew on the thinking of layout builders who use the oval make a few laps, and stop at the station and set out a car. Then they continue along, and when they come to the same station in a few laps, they pretend it is a different town, and set off a car at the other siding, and on it goes.  I admit, I have found the concept to be a bit hokey, but I can see it would work for the person who has little space, and doesn't want just a small switching shelf layout.  I don't want to do it that way, but I think I would like to say make a train at the bottom, run up to the top, but loop back behind some false fronts, trees, or something that can be make it look like the train just went out of view. when it comes back into view before going down, I would be thinking in my mind it is going on down the other side of the mountain to another town.  It could loop back at the lower town and go up again where it would terminate giving a run 3 times as long.  Yes, I would have to use imagination, but I think it serves both desires, since I am way short on room to make a run that long linear.

As to access; I didn't ask, but I took for granted that Dave is representing a person with the blue circles, but with the larger cutout access area with the black lines farther out around them.  I can make foam based lift out scenery to cover them when I don't need access.  Now, the blue loop at the bottom is near the window that goes into the laundry.  it is low enough, I can reach through there to access that area.  I do not know yet whether I will leave it open to view the layout in that way (I think my wife wants it open), but I could make a removable backdrop section on it.  If the blue yard isn't there, I could make another access hole there.  I did realize that I wanted a bit more scenery than the turntables would allow.

Oh, another note, I could not envision the scenery I wanted with the long grade downhill with the downhill loops crossing over themselves.  I sent Dave a couple scanned photos of an HO layout from another magazine publisher.  I thought it improper to post the photos from another magazine here, though I would like to very much.  This arrangement allows for that type scenery whether the passing track is in or not.

John, the very best idea is the one you suggest where I lay it all out on the floor and try it out.  I have the room fairly empty; yesterday I took down the grade test and the reaching into an 7" high enclosure test.  I also have a bunch of engine and rolling stock boxes in the room that I put there when I emptied the closet under the stairs to find my books and articles.  I took photos of the box ends to go with my spreadsheet listing everything I own.  I am ready to pull the remaining boxes out to photograph and put them all away.  I have the little table with my Z4000 and DCS on it that powered the grade test.  Once the boxes are out of the way, I will build the mainline with turnback loops on the floor, (Dave's plan) and try the scenario I mentioned above for a while, I will then remove the turnback loops and make it truly point to point and try it out that scenario for a while.  Then I will have a better idea of what I want.  Do I want the point to point I was planning many years ago, but in a much smaller space in a much larger scale, or do I want to fudge some to make the run seem a little longer.  At this point, I am going to take the neutral stance and see what happens.  Excellent idea John!!

In the meantime, I will buy paint, research some track lighting, and price lumber.  

John and Dave, thank you both for lots of contribution, and thank you everyone else who have thrown in some other points.  I will welcome anyone's comments!  Who knows, maybe one of you out there has a third very different option you would like to share!!    You are welcome to share if you do have anything.  You don't need to support Dave, John, Me, or anyone.  I'm pushing 61; though in time I realize I may want to make some changes, I do not want to be dissatisfied with the whole concept a few years from now but not feel like starting over.  

I really like the original and track going under twice...but the other way does improve the grade.  It also lengthens the run.  I understand that the turntables do take up valuable scenery room, but they help with reach.

If you do end up looping, on one end or the other, or both, do your best to plan how you will visually "divide" to get away from the looping toy train layout look.  There is nothing like that in the canyon.  

I don't know what your skill level is in regard to "pop-up" hatches, but that would be a good option for aesthetics and accessibility.  

I like having a "continuous" option, but in your area it just eats up so much space.  I think a turntable would be super interesting and impressive in the lower area.  Up to you?  You've got a million and one things to decide!  I'm curious to see what you'll do.  I know you are too.  :-)

I gathered up some track, moved some boxes, and have about 1/3 snapped together on the floor, for my mainline time test at 10 Scale mph.  That's all since it was Valentine's Day.  Kim gave me an MTH Premier 2-bay hopper to add to the collection of rolling stock for the layout.  A knowing wife is a blessing!

Mark,

I'm posting the latest designs we've come up with substituting Ross switches for the GarGraves switches in the original versions. The version in this first photo uses standard switches. As you can see, in order to accommodate the engine spurs, the loop now covers some tracks below requiring a tunnel or some unique way to deal with the overhang. The Red circles denote tracks that have to be cut. The curvy tracks with no color show how the hidden spur would run if you substituted an O42 switch for the Wye switch.

The version in this second photo shows the same basic design with 2 modifications. The curve in the upper left now uses a Ross Curved O72/O54 switch. As you can see, the loop needed to be move more to the right and doesn't cover as much track below. However, in order to accommodate the engine spurs, I had to keep the 2 GarGraves O42 switches in that area.

Because there was some concern about reach, I added 30" circles to show how much of the track runs could feasibly be reached from the edge of the bench work and the access hatches. As you can see, there is one section along the top right where a stool will need to be used. There is room for an access hatch, but it would be to be a little less than 18"x24". 

NOTE: In both versions, the grade starts just inside the tunnel. If you start the grade outside the tunnel, the slope increases from 3.0% up to 3.4% depending on where you start it. I relocated and reoriented both spurs inside the loops to give you as much space as possible for landscaping. The centers of the tracks along the walls are on the 5" grid mark and should allow clearance for the engines and rolling stock you intended to run.

NOTE 2: The only other thing I can think of to try is to move the lower section of grade track closer to the wall and extend the tunnel. I don't know if tunnels on inclines is prototypical, but it would allow you to landscape that entire area as the side of a canyon and it would look like this:

Last evening I performed my timed test.  At 10 scale mph the 0-8-0 completed a reasonable representation of the plan using Fastrak 036 and 048 curves came to be 2:45.  At 5 scale mph it was 5:05.  10 may be a bit fast, but I think 5 is pretty slow for going uphill.  So, it was a reasonable test.  It takes almost a minute to move an engine 180 degrees on the Atlas turntable.  Fiddle around with some cars on and off, and time fiddling comes in between the two timed tests, I would say.  Too short of a run for me.  

I checked the overhang for clearance purposes while setup.  On the 036 curve, my longest overhang was a bit less than 2 1/2 inches from the center line of the track.  I even tried a couple 15" passenger cars, and they came in just under that.  So, that isn't too bad at all.  Here is a photo of part of my setup, I actually didn't have enough straight sections to replicate, so I used curves out of a Thomas set.

 Dave,

The plans look great!  I like the one with the circles showing reach that has the curved turnout at the upper level.  I am not concerned about a grade on a tunnel.  I will just makes sure my roadbed and track are excellent before I cover it.  While on the topic, I did a little research and there are many railroad tunnels on grades.  I know the Gallitzin Tunnels at Tunnel Hill between Altoona & Horseshoe Curve and the West Slope & Johnstown have slight grade difference.  I was surprised to learn the following:

There is a 1.7% grade inside BNSF's Cascade Tunnel (7.79 miles long) that is approached on either end by 2.2% grades on the rest of the mainline there. BNSF's Stampede Pass tunnel, was built in the 1880s with ascending grades from either end. The summit of Stampede Pass is literally inside the mountain.

I never knew this but the Spiral Tunnels in Kicking Horse Pass are a classic example of two tunnels that climb and then pass over their origins to get around a section of track that used to be 4%.  Here is a picture from when it was built in 1909.  I guess as they say, there is a prototype for everything.

I really think that is the plan for my layout.  Of course, I know there will be modifications along the way, but it does what I am looking for in this relatively small space for O gauge.  I couldn't find a model photo online to show adequately what I envision on the pink wall, but imagine another track in the valley below the main halfway up.  Of course, we all have to scale the scenery way, way down, but that gives an idea.

I need to get some paint and track lighting up in that room and then move forward.  Thank you for your interest everyone!!

Since it's at the beginning, the grade in the tunnel is very slight and shouldn't present any problem other than making sure the portal is properly placed with sufficient clearance. Is there something specific you like about the version with curved switch? The switch itself or something else?

Dave,

Yes, the upper track is not right over the track in the tunnel.  It isn't the switch, in and of itself.  If I make a removable scenic top to the tunnel, then I would still be able to access that track if I needed to do maintenance or found it easier to get a derailment if something was stuck.  Now I'm not so concerned about the staging track under the loop, because I can make a front panel for access.

You mentioned something to me about short tunnels where you can see both ends of the train.  I know of lots of them.  Tracks along the Allegheny River and Potomac river sometimes go through short tunnels to save going around big over 180 degree bends in the river.  As for model trains, I'm not one for the train disappearing into a tunnel and wondering when, (and to the visitor, where) the train will emerge.  So a short tunnel if it is sceniced properly is very good for me.  I like the idea of the tracks at two levels on the mountainside instead of one covered by a tunnel also.

You did a really wonderful job on these.  Thank you very much!!!

What does everyone else think?  If you see something you would like to question or add a new idea, I'm open to hear from you.  Thanks!!

Mark, that's kind of what I expected and I can't disagree. I also figured you'd like the new staging spur better too, so I'm going to delete the alternate one. I know of short tunnels too, just wanted to make sure you were okay with it and I get what you're saying about the long tunnel, just wanted to show an alternative. I'll save the other files and we'll work off the one with the curved switch as we go forward. It's been a lot of fun working on these, but I hope others will take a hard look at them to see what we've missed.

One of the great things about this thread is how seemingly unrelated ideas and suggestions are slowly evolving into a solid plan to go forward with. Experience and knowledge backed with research and prototype testing. This is a good example of the engineering process. Very entertaining. Mark, I'm sure you will be happy with the final result of you effort. 

Pat, I had only partially realized what you are saying, but now I agree with it all.  I posted an initial idea influenced by ideas Dave and Jason were working on in other topics.  John C brought up the mountain layout based on the Blackwater Canyon.  Amazing that he picked that, when I had thoroughly researched the prototype almost 20 years ago and had a crude plan developing, before family took up more of my time.  

John came up with a concept of bringing cars and engines off each end of the layout.  Dave came up with an idea for a continuous run option.  I didn't want trains crossing over each other decending the mountain and wanted to incorporate both John and Dave's concepts into a longer run, but still giving the point to point flavor.

The software gave us the opportunity to calculate grades and clearances, and I thought why not test my engines to see what they can pull uphill.  Time on the route was a concern to, so John suggested I mock that up!  

This is just one of the things that is great about OGR Forum.  Collaboration.  Back long ago, I actually built a layout where I made a clay and cardboard mockup of my layout.  It was not to scale, but I followed it during construction and scenery.  This was before I had ever used a DOS computer.  I had absolutely no input from anyone except what I read in magazines.

Thank you Pat for your observation!

Mark:  You have really been thinking and testing all of this out.  Very smart.  You are way ahead of the game in planning how you are going to access areas for future issues.  You never know what will happen next.

I just had a crazy thing happen two days back.  Connie's new 4-8-4 stalls and dies and 1 24 inch curve of track, where everything else runs perfectly.  It is an area that has a "dead" rail to automatically activate crossing signals.  I also have two blocks "meet" in the "dead" rail area.  Apparently, the electrical pickups on Connie's monster engine are set just perfectly that it loses contact.  Thank God I didn't start cutting wires.  

Anyway, I must change my electrical division just slightly to keep the monster 4-8-4 going!  It is always something.  :-)  

You have a very good theme and plan for the Blackwater Canyon Line going.  You are going to have a truly great layout in an average space.  It can be done.   Many people say they don't have room, but there is always something you can do.  Your railroad will be another example.  Work on the daughter to provide you with some STELLAR back-drops!  :-)

John,

Well that seems a crazy problem to have with Connie's 4-8-4, but I understand the cause.  It just shows that whenever you think you have everything figured out, something can show you that you need to make adjustments.

Thank you for the comments on the plan!  It certainly has been a group effort, and will continue to be, at least from a thinking perspective.  Maybe you missed it, but I bought George's (G3750) professionally painted backdrops a couple weeks ago.  He was selling them in preparation for moving across state.  They go very well with my theme, I think.  My daughter, Heidi, already saw them and approved.  She said she can match up whatever else I may need.  The Ohio River portion will be covered by some tree covered mountain scenery.  Another group effort!  Here's the photos.

We have discussed benchwork types here a bit and on Mike Rodgers' build topic.  Having built open grid and L-girder, I hadn't quite decided.  I saw a topic in the Buy Sell part of the Forum where someone was looking for a particular DVD from Kalmbach's Dream, Plan, Build series.  I bought a few, so I took a look to see if I had it.  I didn't think so, but I did find one with a segment on L-girder construction by George Sebastian-Coleman.  I was able to pretty much remember how to build it, but the one thing George said several times was that if you didn't have help, one person can build it by himself.  He showed how he did it with no help.  He also used a Skil saw with an adjustable fence to rip through OSB to make most of his dimensional lumber.  I have one and have ripped lumber before, so I feel more confident I can handle it myself.

I'll finish with Big Run Culvert today and yesterday.

Mark, I can see that last photo as the left entrance to the tunnel we have below the upper level I the design.

Dave, It is interesting you say that.  That is the Big Run Culvert near the lower end of the canyon.  I am planing to make a stream coming down and going through the culvert.  Since we need tunnel portals, it only makes sense that they would be constructed similarly because they would have been designed by the same engineer and built about the same time.  I think you are absolutly correct!!

I did some consulting with Carl (moonman) and he suggested some changes, so I incorporated them in the latest design.

Basically, he suggested I resize the tunnel fronts the entire cliff below the upper deck and will look better once landscaping it added rather than have the landscaping kind of "pouring" unto the tunnel entrance.

He also found a Ross switch that I missed. I had looked for a better switch for the upper loop so the spurs would be parallel. I looked through the list of numbered switches, but it was at the beginning of the switches in the library and not with the numbered switches where I was looking. As you can see, the spurs are now parallel and free up a little extra space for landscaping.

I also changed the spurs in the lower loop to match, but the one may need to be clipped because the transition piece is so long.

We discussed the hidden siding a bit and I said you may or may not use it. As I said in email it costs quite a bit, but if nothing else, the tunnel gives the impression there is somewhere else for trains to go. If you have a logging operation up top and a mill down below, it could suggest a route to delivery destinations for the milled lumber. Still might be expensive though just to get that "look".

We also talked about landscaping and he said he has some buildings in SCARM format, so if you have some ideas of what kind of structures you might want, he'll send them to me and we can do some more brainstorming. I also saw a thread with several too that I need to download just to have for future use.

That looks like an amazing track plan!   

Jdevleerjr posted:

That looks like an amazing track plan!   

Jim,

You are so right!  Between John C.'s ideas, Dave's SCARM skills, and now Carl's input, I am really happy with the plan!!  If you have read back, we have done some testing both electronically (SCARM) and physically (me mocking up some grades and track on the floor to make sure I can handle the grades and just how long a mountain train will take to traverse the layout.  I am really excited about putting this plan into action!  Thanks for your comment!

I was off work today, so I went to Home Depot and Lowes.  I bought spackle for the holes from our daughter's shelves and Sherwin Williams Sky Blue paint.  It is a light blue.  So I went to the train room to put them in there and move some things around, and saw that the globe had fallen off the ceiling light fixture and shattered into thousands of pieces.  No damage was done, as the middle of the floor was empty.  I recalled that it is a twist on globe, and it was so wide and rather flat, that it was hard to take off to change bulbs.  I didn't tighten it the whole way last time, and so it slowly worked its way off.  I'm just glad it didn't happen when it was still an art studio.  That would have been a mess.

So after cleanup, I decided to mark off the floor where the tracks would go on the Thomas/Davis site to see which of my buildings would fit.  I had hoped to get the buildings in but didn't have time.  I took a photo of that much, but couldn't upload any photos right now for some reason.  I'll try again another day, after I try out some buildings.

Well, I finally figured out how much under 144 square feet this room is.  It is 130.3333 square feet, so I changed the title of my topic to match.

Here is a sketchy mock up of what I am looking to do at Thomas, WV.  That is the higher of the two towns.  The tape shows roughly where the track will go.  The broken lines don't mean it is hidden, I gust measured out several points from the center of the circle and put tape on those spots.  Note the second row of buildings are on top of Lionel boxes, representing the second street is higher up the hill.  The two buildings on the heater represent farther up the hill.  Don't worry about the heater.  We have never used it, and it is shut down.

I will do the same thing with the Hendricks town site with some different buildings and some of these.  This is just to give a representation of what I would like to do.  It is by no means etched in stone.

Here are some photos of the real place.  Note the third photo says the altitude is 3200 feet above sea level.

Well done, Mark. That looks good.

Used to hike and backpack around Tucker County, oh thirty years ago or so.  It was pretty quiet even then.  Did a little searching on more recent stats:

Thomas had 452 residents in 2000, and per capita income was $14,918

Hendricks had 319 residents in 2000, per capita income was $21,315

Tucker counted 7,321 in 2000 census, is West Virginia's second-least populous county.

Dave,

Thank you!

Bill,

I was not aware Tucker is the least populated county.  Thank you for the info.  We used to live outside Keyser in Mineral County and I worked at the Vepco Power Station, which I think is in Grant County.  We did some sightseeing in Tucker County, as much as you can do with preschoolers.  Now they are grown and married.  We wouldn't mind retiring there, if it wasn't for family here in Butler County Pennsylvania.

Impressive design, and the mock up looks great.